Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Post deleted by McNulty
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Horrible
So sorry this happened to you
Unfortunately another reason so many are on indoor trainers
So sorry this happened to you
Unfortunately another reason so many are on indoor trainers
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Interesting story. Sad how it turned out. Not surprised.
Now you know what "jury of your peers" means, and that many lawyers are conniving lying pieces of shit. It's their job. You should also know that escalating any situation when you are clearly in a vulnerable position is not wise...
Now you know what "jury of your peers" means, and that many lawyers are conniving lying pieces of shit. It's their job. You should also know that escalating any situation when you are clearly in a vulnerable position is not wise...
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Sorry to hear that ordeal, and pissed at the decision. These are the same roads I ride quite often, and I know exactly "the guy" type you are talking about. I bet most are not local; rather they are passerby rushing their way to Purcellville or Front Royal or whatnot. The locals including horse trailers and hay trucks for the most part give me wide berth. Even though your area is still quite rural, but the surrounding exurbs are developing like crazy, and that's where a lot of the traffics are coming from.
This is also one of the reasons that I am riding gravel more on weekends.
This is also one of the reasons that I am riding gravel more on weekends.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Jesus man. What a shitty experience. Sorry you had to experience that. Failed justice system on this one. Horrible.
- Jordan
My Strava
- Jordan
My Strava
Post deleted by Administrator
[ In reply to ]
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
The cleats on your shoes make good self defense weapons. You can get off your bike and get your shoes off pretty quick......trust me.
Re: Us v Them [runner66]
[ In reply to ]
runner66 wrote:
Why do you feel the need to disparage lawyers with that comment? How would you like it if someone commented about your profession that way? Just because the OP had a bad experience and lost a trial does not mean that the defense lawyer was a lying piece of sh. Maybe he was just doing his job and trying to defend his client to the best of his ability. I am not taking the side of the defendant who is clearly an out of control dirtbag, but the comment about lawyers was unnecessary.
Bless your heart.
Re: Us v Them [runner66]
[ In reply to ]
runner66 wrote:
Why do you feel the need to disparage lawyers with that comment? How would you like it if someone commented about your profession that way? Just because the OP had a bad experience and lost a trial does not mean that the defense lawyer was a lying piece of sh.If my profession involved subverting justice and getting scumbags off in trials for $$$, then I think my skin would be plenty thick to take a little criticism.
I said "many lawyers are conniving lying pieces of shit. It's their job." Not all of them. It would be more accurate to say that many lawyers encourage their clients to do the lying and simply spin the crap out of those lies to sow confusion and doubt (reasonable doubt) in the minds of the jury. The lawyers themselves don't actually lie... that would be against the law... ;)
Re: Us v Them [Scottxs]
[ In reply to ]
Scottxs wrote:
The cleats on your shoes make good self defense weapons. You can get off your bike and get your shoes off pretty quick......trust me.Leave them on and practice kicks to the face... or wherever.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Although he voided jail he didn't avoid a $50K legal bill.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
The defense did a good job in voir dire. They got a jury that was ready to let him off.
As some sort of consolation, this probably cost the defendant 5 figures to defend. The first trial, second, appeals, there were LOTS of billable hours in there. Yea he got off, but it wasn't cheap. Your video and witnesses at least allowed this to go to trial. I'd venture to bet most times in these situations the DA doesn't have enough to bring it to trial and the guy gets off with a $1,000 bill to his attorney (if that).
As some sort of consolation, this probably cost the defendant 5 figures to defend. The first trial, second, appeals, there were LOTS of billable hours in there. Yea he got off, but it wasn't cheap. Your video and witnesses at least allowed this to go to trial. I'd venture to bet most times in these situations the DA doesn't have enough to bring it to trial and the guy gets off with a $1,000 bill to his attorney (if that).
Re: Us v Them [runner66]
[ In reply to ]
runner66 wrote:
Why do you feel the need to disparage lawyers with that comment? How would you like it if someone commented about your profession that way? Just because the OP had a bad experience and lost a trial does not mean that the defense lawyer was a lying piece of sh. Maybe he was just doing his job and trying to defend his client to the best of his ability. I am not taking the side of the defendant who is clearly an out of control dirtbag, but the comment about lawyers was unnecessary.
Not at all. Only a dirtbag defends another dirtbag. As long as there are lawyers defending POS, they get what they deserve.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
I understand your frustration, but don't bag on "rural" America to the exclusion of everybody else. "Urban" America has precisely the same set of problems (as do most countries, I suspect). MOST people get held up in traffic by cyclists -- even / especially the ones who give us adequate space. I hate it when I'm a driver and I hate it when I'm a cyclist. But it stacks the deck against us with everyone, everywhere.
Mistake #1 -- Flipping the bird. That will kill your sympathy with a jury every. single. time. The jurors themselves might have done the same, but the fact that you did it instantly labels you as a bad person. The defense attorney just had to leverage that into, "this guy is lying, but even if he's not, he deserved what he got. He inflamed the passions of this driver who was minding his own business." Lawyers are scum (and I am one). If they don't capitalize on a gesture like that, they're not doing their job. Heck, a guy could literally get away with murder if the victim flipped him off first.
If there's a silver lining on this cloud, just know that the scum bucket lawyer charged the perp a ton of cash to do this deed twice. Six months of the guy's salary wouldn't surprise me at all. He stayed out of jail, but his bank balance won't recover for awhile.
Mistake #1 -- Flipping the bird. That will kill your sympathy with a jury every. single. time. The jurors themselves might have done the same, but the fact that you did it instantly labels you as a bad person. The defense attorney just had to leverage that into, "this guy is lying, but even if he's not, he deserved what he got. He inflamed the passions of this driver who was minding his own business." Lawyers are scum (and I am one). If they don't capitalize on a gesture like that, they're not doing their job. Heck, a guy could literally get away with murder if the victim flipped him off first.
If there's a silver lining on this cloud, just know that the scum bucket lawyer charged the perp a ton of cash to do this deed twice. Six months of the guy's salary wouldn't surprise me at all. He stayed out of jail, but his bank balance won't recover for awhile.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
That's a depressing read. I'm sure I would have reacted similarly if "buzzed" out on a country road. With all the evidence you presented that sounds like an open and shut case (against the dirtbag (or the guy). Will this experience change your riding habit/routine?
Re: Us v Them [ajthomas]
[ In reply to ]
ajthomas wrote:
Although he voided jail he didn't avoid a $50K legal bill.Well, I'd like to believe that but I think his lawyer did it for a lot less. He's not top shelf by any means.
Re: Us v Them [FlashBazbo]
[ In reply to ]
FlashBazbo wrote:
I understand your frustration, but don't bag on "rural" America to the exclusion of everybody else. "Urban" America has precisely the same set of problems (as do most countries, I suspect). MOST people get held up in traffic by cyclists -- even / especially the ones who give us adequate space. I hate it when I'm a driver and I hate it when I'm a cyclist. But it stacks the deck against us with everyone, everywhere. Mistake #1 -- Flipping the bird. That will kill your sympathy with a jury every. single. time. The jurors themselves might have done the same, but the fact that you did it instantly labels you as a bad person. The defense attorney just had to leverage that into, "this guy is lying, but even if he's not, he deserved what he got. He inflamed the passions of this driver who was minding his own business." Lawyers are scum (and I am one). If they don't capitalize on a gesture like that, they're not doing their job. Heck, a guy could literally get away with murder if the victim flipped him off first.
If there's a silver lining on this cloud, just know that the scum bucket lawyer charged the perp a ton of cash to do this deed twice. Six months of the guy's salary wouldn't surprise me at all. He stayed out of jail, but his bank balance won't recover for awhile.
My point really about the rural (and I've been for 33 years) is that there is a generalized anger towards the probably DC, therefore probably liberal cyclist effing up their roads and life; a gross generalization on their part but that's where we are. I think this story speaks more to the divided state of America as much as anything else.
Re: Us v Them [Ironfan]
[ In reply to ]
Ironfan wrote:
runner66 wrote:
Why do you feel the need to disparage lawyers with that comment? How would you like it if someone commented about your profession that way? Just because the OP had a bad experience and lost a trial does not mean that the defense lawyer was a lying piece of sh. Maybe he was just doing his job and trying to defend his client to the best of his ability. I am not taking the side of the defendant who is clearly an out of control dirtbag, but the comment about lawyers was unnecessary.
Not at all. Only a dirtbag defends another dirtbag. As long as there are lawyers defending POS, they get what they deserve.
To start off, IF this attorney was aware that his client intended to provide false testimony, he/she was bound by ethics to not call that client to the stand to testify. With that said, we do still enjoy, in principle anyway, a presumption of innocence in this country. If, as you suggest, only a dirtbag would defend a dirtbag, well, we can just throw that presumption of innocence thing right out the window. While the guy may very well be a dirtbag, attorney too, that is no reason to suggest that he doesn't deserve a defense. Depriving someone of their liberty is a serious thing and the thought of abandoning a system that forces the State to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a defendant is guilty, is frightening. Once you go there, a defendant is guilty because the State says so. The system isn't perfect, but I would rather err on the side of the rights of the accused than on the side of the power of the State.
Re: Us v Them [FlashBazbo]
[ In reply to ]
FlashBazbo wrote:
Mistake #1 -- Flipping the bird.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Us v Them [ripple]
[ In reply to ]
ripple wrote:
FlashBazbo wrote:
Mistake #1 -- Flipping the bird.Bingo. I have people I won't ride with because in the same scenario they'd be the first ones hollering and flipping out (and flipping off). When I get buzzed, which is not frequently, I remind myself most of the times it is out of ignorance and not malice. Purse your lips and may be shake your head a little. But it's best to not go ape-shit about it. If the guy thinks he's a big dick swinging tough man he's looking for you to fight about it, don't reward him.
Think of how much simpler this would have been if you would have just maintained your composure.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
McNulty wrote:
I think this story speaks more to the divided state of America as much as anything else.Nah. I think that's reading too much into it. Not everything is political. It's just that (1) a LOT of people hate being held up in traffic by cyclists, and (2) a few of those people have anger management issues. It's not a conservative / liberal / socialist / moderate thing. People are people. And people sometimes do incredibly stupid and even violent things when they're having a bad day. You can google and find that tons of these situations arise even in the most "progressive" of urban areas. That certainly doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it right that the perps get off the legal hook.
I've three times been literally, intentionally, physically run off the road by jerks in vehicles. The vehicle types ran the gamut. In each case, I think they were ashamed of their actions after the Sheriff's Deputies and Highway Patrol showed up. (Okay, the guy in the suit driving a Lexus left the scene. He didn't wait for the cops to show up.) But they were all out of control jerks having a bad day. They didn't ask my political affiliations.
Re: Us v Them [McNulty]
[ In reply to ]
Well you probably know where he lives now, and parks his car, right?
Re: Us v Them [Thom]
[ In reply to ]
I wasn't aware that Americans were so proper that a simple hand gesture was reserved for the most dire of moments and was to be interpreted as the international signal that one was requiring a punch to the face.
Spineless jury. Maybe they will have an encounter with raging sociopath they just let back out onto the street.
Spineless jury. Maybe they will have an encounter with raging sociopath they just let back out onto the street.
McNulty wrote:
FlashBazbo wrote:
I understand your frustration, but don't bag on "rural" America to the exclusion of everybody else. "Urban" America has precisely the same set of problems (as do most countries, I suspect). MOST people get held up in traffic by cyclists -- even / especially the ones who give us adequate space. I hate it when I'm a driver and I hate it when I'm a cyclist. But it stacks the deck against us with everyone, everywhere. Mistake #1 -- Flipping the bird. That will kill your sympathy with a jury every. single. time. The jurors themselves might have done the same, but the fact that you did it instantly labels you as a bad person. The defense attorney just had to leverage that into, "this guy is lying, but even if he's not, he deserved what he got. He inflamed the passions of this driver who was minding his own business." Lawyers are scum (and I am one). If they don't capitalize on a gesture like that, they're not doing their job. Heck, a guy could literally get away with murder if the victim flipped him off first.
If there's a silver lining on this cloud, just know that the scum bucket lawyer charged the perp a ton of cash to do this deed twice. Six months of the guy's salary wouldn't surprise me at all. He stayed out of jail, but his bank balance won't recover for awhile.
My point really about the rural (and I've been for 33 years) is that there is a generalized anger towards the probably DC, therefore probably liberal cyclist effing up their roads and life; a gross generalization on their part but that's where we are. I think this story speaks more to the divided state of America as much as anything else.
Sorry this happened and he got off clean, except for legal fees. I wouldn't be so quick to turn this into the liberal v conservative fight as I know folks on both far sides of the spectrum that ride. It's A-political and ass holes come in all political stripes.
One of my riding partners once flipped a guy off in a big truck on a rural road as well and the guy stopped. My friend was itching for a fight but the truck drove off as we got closer.
Moral of the story for me sadly is don't' ride outside. Zwift is the road of the future.